- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:35:45 -0700
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 6 September 2013 04:23, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > There is nothing preventing the server emitting further 100 status frames > inHTTP/2 format. 100, or 1xx? I thought that the text was good. It specifically doesn't say anything about what happens in the upgraded protocol, because that's the business of that protocol. For HTTP/2.0, I guess that in theory you might get more 1xx status codes, but you won't get 100, because we're prohibiting that. > So like I said 100 and 101 can occur in any order. There is no reason for > the order of them to have any effect on the transaction as a whole. 101 > has no effect on the *request* bytes and 100 has no effect on the > *response* bytes. Why are people seeing any problem here at all? I don't think that a server upgrading to HTTP/2.0 should be sending 100 responses that control the sending of the HTTP/1.1 request. I just can't imagine how that would be healthy.
Received on Friday, 6 September 2013 17:36:12 UTC